[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravi Kandhari vs Smt. Nabbu Alias Narbada ... on 2 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:15154]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6811/2026
Ravi Kandhari S/o Jagdish Kandhari, Aged About 58 Years,
Profession Business, R/o House No. 152, Shakti Nagar, Udaipur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Nabbu Alias Narbada D/o Shri Bhura Gameti, R/o
Gametiyo Ka Mohalla, Sisarma, Tehsil Girwa, District
Udaipur (Raj.).
2. Shri Ramlal S/o Smt. Lali Bai (Father Shri Dhanna)
Gameti, R/o Ratitalai, Hathidhara (Chikalwas), Tehsil
Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).
3. Shri Tulsiram S/o Smt. Lali Bai (Father Shri Dhanna)
Gameti, R/o Hathidhara (Chikalwas), Tehsil Badgaon,
District Udaipur (Raj.). At Present R/o Liyo Ka Guda, Post
Badi, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).
4. Smt. Pushpa D/o Smt. Lali Bai (W/o Shri Kesa Ji) Bhil,
Aged About 55 Years, R/o Hathidhara (Chikalwas), Tehsil
Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.). At Present R/o Village
Gorela (Sisarma), Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.).
5. Shri Dhanna Gameti S/o Shri Pema Bhil, Aged About 71
Years, R/o Hathidhara (Chikalwas), Tehsil Badgaon,
District Udaipur (Raj.).
6. Shri Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Kagaram Bhil, R/o Morvi Ki
Naal, District Udaipur (Raj.).
7. Shri Mangilal Bhil S/o Shri Kalulal Bhil, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Near Sub Up Stand, Khato Ka Rasta, Dhoinda,
Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).
8. Shri Asharam Alias Asulal S/o Shri Mohanlal Bhil, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Bhil Basti, Mawli, Tehsil Mawli,
District Udaipur, At Present R/o Dewali, Udaipur (Raj.).
9. Udaipur Development Authority, Through Commissioner,
(Former Udaipur Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur).
10. Shri Girja Shankar Gupta S/o Shri Manoharlal, R/o
Arihant Vihar, New Power House, Kankroli, Rajsamand.
11. Smt. Rajkumari Agarwal W/o Shri Girjashankar Gupta,
R/o Arihant Vihar, New Power House, Kankroli,
Rajsamand.
12. Shri Pramod Kumar S/o Aatmaram Goyal, R/o Shivyan
House, Oppo. Shiv Hospital, Mahaveer Nagar, Rajsamand.
13. Shri Suresh Chandra Goryal S/o Krishanlal Goyal, R/o
328-A, Basant Vihar, Behind Aakashwani Colony, Hiran
Magri, Sector No. 5, Manvakheda, Udaipur.
14. Shri Jagdish Chandra Agarwal S/o Ghanshyam Agarwal,
R/o Jalchakki Road, Kankroli, Rajsamand.
(Uploaded on 05/04/2026 at 02:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:44:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15154] (2 of 3) [CW-6811/2026]
15. Smt. Madhu Agarwal W/o Jagdish Chandra Agarwal, R/o
Jalchakki Road, Kankroli, Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia with Ms. Alka
Pandey for Mr. Sajjan Singh
Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
02/04/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order
dated 10.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge No.4,
Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.45/2023 (CIS No.225/2023)
whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC as filed on behalf
of the plaintiff stood allowed qua those parties who were
impleaded parties in the appeal before the High Court and stood
rejected qua the other parties on the ground of the same being
premature.
2. The learned Trial Court, while deciding the application,
observed that the suit was at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC
and hence, till date the said application is decided, the
impleadment/non-impleadment of the parties as prayed for, would
be of no consequence.
3. The Court however, granted liberty to the plaintiff to move an
application afresh if application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as
filed by the defendants, stood rejected.
(Uploaded on 05/04/2026 at 02:58:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15154] (3 of 3) [CW-6811/2026]
4. This Court is in concurrence with the observations as made
by the learned Trial Court. It is an admitted fact that earlier,
application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was allowed in favour of
the defendant and on the appeal been filed by the plaintiff, the
matter was remanded back by the High Court to the Trial Court for
decision afresh. The suit is pending at the stage of decision of the
said application.
5. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court's decision
declining to add the other parties at this stage is a practicable
one. If application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed by the
defendants ultimately stand dismissed and the suit proceeds
further, in terms of the liberty granted by the learned Trial Court,
the plaintiff definitely would be at liberty to move an application
afresh for impleadment of the other subsequent purchasers. In
that event, the learned Trial Court shall be under an obligation to
decide the same on its own merit and in accordance with law.
6. Without the issue regarding maintainability of the suit been
decided, impleadment of parties would definitely be futile at this
stage.
7. No ground for interference in the order impugned is made
out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed.
8. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
43-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 05/04/2026 at 02:58:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
